Blekinge Institute of Technology School of Management
Ronneby Sweden
How Diversity Influences the Work Process
in Cooperation Projects
Supervisors: Marie Aurell, Marie Hemming
Author: Sofia M Westerberg
Master Thesis in Business Administration
ABSTRACT
Title: How Diversity Influences the Work Process in Cooperation Projects Author: Sofia M Westerberg
Supervisors: Marie Aurell, Marie Hemming
Department: School of Management, Blekinge Institute of Technology Course: Master’s thesis in Business Administration, 10 credits
Background: Cooperation beyond organizational boundaries becomes more necessary because of the
changing nature of the business environment. The project as a form of organization is very well suited to carry out difficult tasks, not only within organizations but also between them. This means that the traditional view of looking at projects needs rethinking; there is a growing spectrum of projects with wider objectives and a broader scope, which leads to a higher degree of complexity and uncertainty.
Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to get a better understanding of how diversity influences the
work process in a cooperation project. Because the cooperation project is becoming a more common phenomenon, it is interesting to learn more about how diversity has an impact on its work processes and characteristics. Hopefully this study can be one input to managers in making decisions about if a task shall be carried out in a cooperation project group or not, and if that should be the case, what implications this can have on the project and its outcomes.
The research question is:
How can diversity influence the work process in a cooperation project?
Method: The thesis focuses on the development of the work process in a cooperation project, where
the participants come from different organizations, and where there is a high degree of diversity. This is done through a literature review, observations and interviews.
Theory: The theories are about cooperation projects, negotiation in small groups, uncertainty and
complexity in projects and factors of diversity that influence the process; interests, conflicting interest, objectives, motivational orientation and trust. The FIRO-theory of group development (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Motivational orientation, Schutz 1989) is also used.
Analysis: First a literature study was carried out and then methodologies were chosen.
The analysis was made from observations and interviews and carried out on three levels; the
individual level, the group level and the organizational level. First I looked at each individual’s own role and behaviour in the group, secondly and thirdly, the organizations´ own interests, objectives as well as the group’s interests, etc, were considered. The factors of diversity (interests, objectives, orientation and trust) were systemized and analyzed in relation to the three levels of analysis and then discussed in connection to the literature. The findings were combined with the work process and development phases of groups to see how this is influenced by the diversity.
Conclusion:
development of trust takes longer time or only so called “swift trust” will develop. There are more environmental factors that influence the project. Because of the diversity, the formal positions of the representatives in the group become more important. Possible ways of handling the diversity are a general group assignment instead of a concrete objective and a delegated
responsibility from the management to the project group.
Two new forms of motivational orientation of group members were observed during this study. One form I have called “Changing motivational orientation”. The other form of motivational orientation I have named “More than cooperative”. In “Changing motivational orientation”, some of the members in the group turned from one motivational orientation to another one during the scope of the project. In being “More than cooperative” the members see the group’s assignment as the most important task.
The study also shows that the so called “claiming-creation dilemma” (Schei and Rognes, 2005) is not always applicable. Not all the participants saw the balancing between the interests and objectives of their own organization on the one hand and the assignment of the project group on the other. Some of them looked only at their organizations interests and some of them focused totally on the group assignment.
The study also shows that the FIRO-model for group development is relevant also for cooperation projects, but with some adjustments, because the development phases takes longer time due to the issue of diversity.
Practical implications for managers:
It is important that managers take into consideration that diversity in a cooperation project gives other prerequisites for the work process in the project. Because the two first phases of the group
development is likely to take longer time than in a more traditional project, there might be time pressure in the end if some more time compared to that in a traditional project is not calculated with. Through lowering the degree of uncertainty, through knowledge about diversity in the form of interests, conflicting interests, objectives and trust, it might also be possible to shorten the two first phases of group development. It gives prerequisites to increase the sense of security and through that a feeling of trust can evolve, which in turn gives an efficient group climate. All this implies that the possibilities to reach better outcomes of the project increase.
When choosing representatives to the group, think about the formal positions of the people and reflect on what signals this give to the other organizations. Discuss and reflect upon which motivational orientation the participants from the own organization should have, depending on if you want short-term results or a long-short-term cooperation. Try to identify which motivational orientation each of the other group members has for the project work, as this will lead to a greater understanding of the process. Take into account that the motivational orientation is not static, but can change during the time of the project.
It is not easy to judge what impact environmental factors have on project work. Therefore, reflect on what might happen and create different scenarios in order to be well prepared for a variety of
situations.
Keywords: cooperation project, uncertainty, complexity, diversity, interests, conflicting interests,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank those who made this study possible. First of all, thank you to the members and the chairman of the project group, who so openly and warmly welcomed me to make observations and also took the time to participate in the in-depth interviews about the work. I cannot thank you enough for the possibility to observe the group and for the insights these observations have given me! A warm thank you to Prof. Anders Hederstierna, who gave me the idea to study for an MBA. My supervisors, Marie Aurell and Marie Hemming, thank you very much for taking your time to discuss literature, methodologies and concepts, answering questions about phenomenology, induction and deduction, hermeneutics, etc, as well as explaining the meaning of different concepts and how to think when it comes to problem discussions vis-à-vis theoretical discussions. Thank you also to my director Inger Johansson, for giving me the chance to make the observations as a part of my work. A dear thank you to my family and friends, who all have put up with me when I was only thinking about methodology, interviews and group processes….. to my husband for supporting me and taking care of the children and the rest of my family for their encouragement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1,
INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Background ... 7
1.2 Cooperation projects open up for diversity ... 8
1.2.1 The work process and group development ... 11
1.3 Aim/ purpose/ research question ... 12
1.3.1 What is new in this study? ... 12
1.3.2 How can this study be of use? ... 13
1.4 Outline of each chapter ... 13
CHAPTER TWO, METHODOLOGY ... 14 2.1 Methodology discussion ... 14 2.1.1 Interviews ... 15 2.1.2 Observation ... 17 2.1.3 Literature studies ... 18 2.2 Analysis ... 18 CHAPTER THREE, THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 20
3.1 Uncertainty and complexity... 20
3.2 Diversity ... 21
3.2.1 Diversity implies negotiations ... 21
3.2.2 Interests and conflicting interests... 22
3.2.3 Diverse objectives ... 23
3.2.4 Motivational orientation ... 24
3.2.5 Trust ... 25
3.3 The FIRO-model- development phases in a project ... 27
CHAPTER FOUR, EMPIRICAL STUDY ... 29
4.1 Cooperation for increased competitiveness ... 29
4.2 Organization of the cooperation ... 29
4.3 The project group ... 29
4.4 The project assignment ... 30
CHAPTER FIVE, ANALYSIS ... 31
5.1 The FIRO-model in relation to a cooperation project ... 31
5.1.1 The FIRO-model useful also for diversity? ... 34
5.2 How diversity in interests influences the work process ... 35
5.2.1 Delegated responsibility ... 35
5.2.2 Impact of hidden and subtle interests ... 36
5.3 A general assignment- a solution to diversity in objectives? ... 38
5.4 A positive group climate ... 39
5.5 A win-win solution despite diversity ... 40
5.6 Support of an administrative structure... 41
5.7 Environmental factors ... 41
CHAPTER SIX, CONCLUSIONS ... 42
6.1 Conclusions and discussion... 42
6.1.1 Diversity and its influence on the work process ... 42
6.1.2 A new concept of “Changing motivational orientation” ... 43
6.1.3 A new orientation called “More than cooperative” ... 43
6.1.4 The “claiming-creation dilemma” is not always applicable ... 43
6.1.5 Environmental factors ... 44
6.1.6 Delegated responsibility ... 44
6.1.7 The importance of formal position... 44
6.1.8 The FIRO-model is relevant also for cooperation projects ... 44
6.2 Practical implications ... 45
6.3 Suggestions to further research ... 45
References ... 47
List of Illustrations
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will first frame the study through explaining the background, discussing the problem, stating the aim and purpose of the thesis as well as the research question. Then the study will be positioned through showing what is new in this research.
1.1 Background
The rapidly changing environments for many business- and work organizations have put new demands on them. The reality for companies today is characterized by permanent turbulence, with rapid and unpredictable changes (Christensen, Kreiner 2005). In attempts to adapt to this changing reality, to cope with it and to handle it in a flexible manner, businesses and organizations have granted project groups, or teams, increased autonomy and flexibility (Dubrin, 2004). This means that businesses and organizations are opening up for cooperation beyond organizational boundaries to survive in the changing environment. Recent research shows that the traditional view of looking at projects needs rethinking; there is a growing spectrum of “softer” projects, with wider objectives and a broader scope with a larger amount of complexity and uncertainty. The more traditional concept of a project has been broadened also to involve multiple projects that are not so well defined, where goals are wider and negotiations ongoing (Atkinson et al 2006). Also the notion of projects that involve a number of different participating organizations has become more common, when an overall goal exists and to reach greater efficiency (Wisén, Lindblom 2004).
The changing nature of the business environment opens up for cooperation beyond organizational boundaries. The need for complementary competencies, increasing benchmarking and keeping up with fast changes in global economy becomes more necessary. It is impossible for one organisation to cope with all of this on its own. According to Wisén, Lindblom (2004) one organization on its own cannot have all the competence, knowledge, contacts and means required for development.
Traditionally, the project has been viewed as a tool, a means to reach intended goals, where the stages consist of planning, controlling and evaluation. It is close to make the comparison of viewing an organization as a machine. Relevant today is instead to view the project as a contemporary organized process. The relevant project stages are expectations, action and learning, which interact during the lifetime of the project. Some of the characteristics of the new form of project, the contemporary organization, is an organized course of action aimed at completing a non-routine process and is so complex in terms of roles and number of roles that it requires conscious organizing. Focus is no longer on planning and structure, but on viewing the actions of individuals, which together form processes (Packendorff, 1995).
The project as a form of organization is very well suited to carry out difficult tasks, not only within one organization but also between several organizations. Because a project is organized in a different way it puts other conditions, possibilities and constraints on the participants than the more regular forms of organizations. This is even more accentuated in projects that consist of participants
Cooperation project groups give diversity in the group. In creating a group consisting of participants from multiple businesses or organizations, there is of course diversity. Diversity arises from different objectives and interests of the organizations and /or participants themselves, motivational orientation of the participants, ideas and opinions, etc. In diversity management, factors of gender, culture, ethnicity, etc, are normally discussed. This thesis instead focuses on factors that create diversity because organizations should cooperate, not depending on the group members´ diverse backgrounds. “…the fundamental problem of organization is precisely about reconciling and bringing together individuals and groups with divergent, often conflicting, interests and perspectives.”
(Bresnen, 2007, p.368) Because of the diversity there is a high level of uncertainty and complexity in the project group. The participants find themselves in a complex situation, because there are a number of factors that give diversity which must be tackled in one way or another. For example, the participants have at least two levels of interests to take into account; demands that the work in the group is progressing well and reaches its goals and at the same time take into consideration and protect the interests of their own organization. And, maybe conscious, or at a more unconscious level, there are the individual interests of each participant which might affect the work in the group. In public-private partnership projects in the Netherlands, it was shown that project management problems can be traced back to the conflicts of interest between the partners (Reijniers, 1994).
1.2 Cooperation projects open up for diversity
“Project work in the future will provide a way for organizations to release the creative forces within themselves rather than to plan; a way to enhance participation rather than control.”
(Packendorff, 2005, p. 320)
Uncertainty and complexity are two concepts that have become more and more relevant during the last years due to the changing business environment. Globalisation affects companies and their situation; competition increases at the same time as the market expands, etc. This leads to a higher degree of uncertainty- who are my customers, where can I find them, what do they want, etc. At the same time it also implies a higher degree of complexity to handle (Christensen, Kreiner, 2005). As for projects and project management, this is also very much about handling uncertainty and complexity. According to Lin et al (2005) groups have become more complex, multilevel and dynamic than before. This is even more noticeable with the notion of cooperation projects becoming more common as a form for handling more qualified development and cooperation issues. The notion of a
cooperation project is in many ways a result of this business reality and the new needs and demands that have arisen. It also is affected by uncertainty and complexity (Atkinson et al, 2006).
The cooperation project as a phenomenon occurs as a response to the new business environment. Projects consisting of participants from a number of organizations have been called differently by different authors. Wisén and Lindblom (2004) call them “cooperation projects” and define them as projects that are about cooperation between a number of actors that do not have the same
management and that are formally independent of each other.
Kadefors (2004) calls it “partnering projects” and speaks about inter-organizational relations in projects.
I have chosen to use the definition of a cooperation project made by Wisén and Lindblom (2004) in this thesis, because I feel that it is the most straight forward and simple term. It also fits well with the case studied here.
There is also the notion of a small group that is of relevance related to the topic, because is has many similarities with a project group. The participants form a small group; they have different goals to achieve and multiple interests to take into account. A small group can exist in business transactions, in work organizations as well as in the private sphere as families, volunteer organisations (Schei, Rognes, 2005). As well as there is research concerning projects and protect management, there is also research concerning small groups and how they act and function. A group can be defined as three or more independent and interacting individuals (Ancona, Freidman & Kolb, 1991 in Schei, Rognes, 2005).
There are prerequisites and obstacles concerning the cooperation project. At the same time as it gives greater possibilities and opportunities for the parties, it puts bigger constraints and complex situations for the project group to handle. In projects consisting of many parties there is a higher degree of uncertainty and complexity than usual. This affects the project to a large extent. (Atkinson et al, 2006) The uncertainty is related to a number of aspects, in relation to performance measures such as costs, duration, quality, and to aspects of objectives and priorities, relationships between project parties, etc. All these aspects are essential, but the latter ones are more important for the project performance. (Chapman, Ward, 2005)
These aspects create the diversity which is underlying and influencing the uncertainty and complexity. The diversity which is discussed here is related to the situation where organizations should cooperate in an external environment, outside the normal organizational boundaries. It is not diversity in the sense of depending on the group members’ backgrounds, such as ethnicity, culture, religion, gender, etc. Looking closer at diversity, there are a number of notions that are relevant; for example interests, conflicting interests, objectives, negotiations, motivational orientation, trust, commitment, organization learning and sharing of knowledge.
All of these concepts and terms give a deeper meaning and understanding to the concept of diversity. They all give complexity and uncertainty in the setting of a cooperation project. They also help to consider aspects and perspectives of the term cooperation project and its environment. Therefore, complexity and uncertainty cannot be seen only in relation to the new business environment, but also on the project level. The diversity in objectives, interests, motivational orientation, etc, within the cooperation project, creates a project environment which is complex and uncertain.
In relation to the concepts of diversity there are a number of factors used and discussed; objectives, negotiations, motivational orientation, group climate, trust, sharing and transfer of knowledge, interests, etc. I have chosen to look closer at four of these which are of special relevance in the study; interests, objectives, motivational orientation and trust. The reason for this is that the literature review shows that objectives and motivational orientation very often are intertwined with the interests, and trust is an important measure that strongly influences the work process in a project with an
The other concepts and terms mentioned would, I am sure, also give interesting information about the cooperation project and its characteristics, but I had to make a choice to look at a restricted number of areas to make the study possible to carry out during the time period given. Atkinson et al, 2006, means that when there are high levels of uncertainty, management processes associated with for example building trust must be better understood and developed. Also the objectives and motivational orientation of each stakeholder must be clarified at an early stage of the project.
In discussing diversity, interests and conflicting interests are important factors giving rise to uncertainty and complexity in relation to cooperation projects (Atkinson et al, 2006). The project participants come from many organizations and have differing interests to take into account; those of their own organizations and those of the group as a whole.
The term interest can have different meanings depending on the situation and setting, with changing content and connection to the situational environment. It is also closely connected and interrelated to two other terms; motivational orientation and objectives. Where do you draw the line between an interest, an objective or a motivational orientation? Sometimes this is clear, but sometimes the picture is more blurred, with the concepts interrelated and intertwined.
There are open and hidden interests at the organizational level, at group level and at the individual level. Interests can also be conscious and unconscious, also varying between the organization, group or individual. Open interests are normally concrete and outspoken, while hidden interests may be unspoken, abstract and sometimes inconsistent (Fisher et al, 2005). In a cooperation project, the participants have a complex situation to handle, taking many interests into account.
Diversity in interest can sometimes give rise to conflicts. Conflicts of interests are often seen as something negative that should be avoided, because they otherwise threaten to destroy the cooperation. According to Chen (2006) the negative aspects of conflicts arise when they are
interpersonal, in other words with another individual, and discussions get hostile and competitive. But there may be positive aspects when there is a conflict about the task. Task conflicts sometimes give fruitful discussions. New ideas and new perspectives may develop the cooperation or results even further. A team that is more multi-functional can give a broader perspective on problem solving and numerous possibilities can be uncovered. Another positive aspect is that the diverse interests can make the dialogue more focused and thorough, the participants must think in new ways and develop their arguments in a better way. (Chen, 2006) On the negative side is that it might be more difficult for the participants to agree on common goals and that there may be more conflicts, if the members do not manage to work in a positive, open environment. (Dubrin, 2004)
Diversity is also affected by if the participants in a group have different kinds of motivational orientation when they discuss, or negotiate, common solutions for the project work. (Brett 2001, De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon, 2000 in Schei, Rognes 2005) The motivational orientation is closely related to the notion of interest and objectives. The motivational orientation of a participant decides which interests that are taken into consideration and put forward in a group. Some participants have what is called an “individualistic motivational orientation”, while others have a “cooperative motivational orientation”. The individualists look either at the outcome and results for their own or for their home organization. The motivational orientation of an individual can therefore depend on the person’s own interests or from instructions from, and/or responsibility to, an organization. The participants with a cooperative characteristic want to get good results both for their own sake, or own organizations sake, and at the same time for the group as a whole.
In projects, trust between the participants is vital to reach a successful completion. Trust is a
necessary factor for processes to function with efficiency and effectiveness. The development of trust is important to take into consideration to obtain good team relations and a positive outcome of the project. (Munns, 1995) It is a challenge to obtain a good group climate in cooperation projects, which exist in complex and uncertain environments. The building of trust is necessary to obtain a feeling of safety in a project, and this is one important aspect in obtaining a good team climate (Loo, 2003). The process of establishing and achieving trust in these kinds of projects is complex. (Kadefors 2004) There are interests, objectives, motivational orientation, etc, to take into consideration in relation to trust. Trust is reciprocal in its nature. If some group members do not trust each other, this will “wear off” on the other group members and a negative spiral of decreasing trust will start. On the contrary, a good spiral of trust will occur when group members do start to trust each other. (Munns, 1995)
1.2.1 The work process and group development
According to Durkheim, project work is a social phenomenon and cannot solely be explained by the characteristics of individuals. Instead it should be explained by collective characteristics, such as the project group and the individuals´ own organizations. (Blomberg, 2003) The group identity in a project has three perspectives: the task dimension, which is about contents, the “what”, the management dimension, which is about the meaning of the group, the “why” and the cooperation dimension, which is about the process, the “how”. (Svedberg, 2007) In this thesis I will touch all perspectives, but the focus of the study will be on the process, the question of how. This kind of project work is always a process. (Wisén, Lindblom 2004) This is why, in this setting, it is interesting to look at the process through which a project evolves. With the concept of the work process in this case I mean the process that takes place from when a project group gets an assignment to when they have finished, the project life time is over and they have delivered a result. The group development that takes place has an impact on this work process and how it develops.
Closely related to the work process is the concept of group development. Every project is a unique grouping of individuals who are not used to working together. Therefore it is especially important for the group to build and establish a common frame of reference, culture and knowledge. (Berggren, Lindkvist, 2001) There are a number of theories about group development. They have in common that they discuss issues such as membership, power and roles, but they differ concerning the aspect of time. (Svedberg, 2007) The theories can be divided into three “schools” (Wheelan 2005 b in
school talks about a cyclic model, where the group is pending between different development issues. Some of them are more important than others and some might be relevant again if something happens in the group, for example new members arrive. Examples of cyclic theories are the FIRO-theory and the Bion´s theory. (Svedberg, 2007) No matter what type of model, it has also been shown that one factor that has an impact of the appearance of the stages in the development process is the
composition of group members (Tuckman, Jensen 1977).
I have chosen to use the theory about the FIRO-circle as a means to analyze and reflect around the work process and the group development in this cooperation project. The model has been chosen because of two reasons; it is pedagogically simple and easy to explain and use and it is quite well-known. Because of this, the model gives a good, clear framework when analyzing the group process in the study. One could say that this is one of the simpler models, but the aim is to get a general outline of the happenings and proceedings in the process. If one would like to go deeper into this issue, the choice of model might very well be another. The model does not especially take into account the notion of a cooperation project, as well as no other model, and therefore it will be interesting to see how it can apply in this case.
1.3 Aim/ purpose/ research question
The purpose of this thesis is to get a better understanding of how diversity influences the work process in cooperation projects. The aim is to increase the knowledge and understanding regarding how a cooperation project works and analyze how this knowledge can be used in other projects. Since projects consisting of participants from many organizations become more and more common, there is a need to increase the knowledge within this area. The more traditional concept of a project has been broadened to also involve multiple projects that are not so well defined, where goals are wider and negotiations ongoing. (Atkinson et al, 2006) Also the notion of projects that involve a number of participating organizations has become more usual, when there is an overall goal and in order to reach greater efficiency. (Wisén, Lindblom 2004) Therefore it is interesting to see how diversity, which is inevitable in this kind of project, influences its work process and characteristics. The study will look close at a cooperation project where the participants come from multiple organizations and the development of the work process, which is characterized by diversity in relation to objectives, interests, motivational orientation and trust.
The research question is:
How can diversity influence the work process in a cooperation project?
1.3.1 What is new in this study?
1.3.2 How can this study be of use?
Hopefully this study can be one input to managers in making decisions about if a task shall be carried out in a cooperation project group or not, and if that should be the case, what implications this can have on the project and its outcomes. There is the view-point that through knowledge about the real world, you can have an impact to change the world in a positive direction. (Blomberg, 2003) Even if this is a lot to be said in relation to one thesis, it can hopefully give some ideas and future guidance for managers facing cooperation projects.
Diversity can also exist in more traditional projects and have an influence on the work carried out. The difference is that diversity is an emphasized feature and characteristic in cooperation projects, where complexity and uncertainty are higher. Even so, this means that there might be aspects discussed in this thesis, which may be of interest to more traditional projects as well.
1.4 Outline of each chapter
Chapter 1 frames the study through stating the aim and purpose of the thesis and discussing the research problem and research question. The study is positioned through showing what is new in this research.
Chapter 2 outlines and discusses the methodologies used in this thesis; explains why certain methodological choices have been made and reflects upon their relative strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 3 presents a review of the literature within the field today and reflects around theories and concepts that are relevant in relation to the research topic.
Chapter 4 gives a background and a presentation of the empirical study carried out.
Chapter 5 analyses the empirical findings in relation to the theories and concepts discussed in chapter 3.
CHAPTER TWO
METHODOLOGY
This chapter will outline and discuss the methodologies used in this thesis; explain why certain methodological choices have been made and reflect upon their relative strengths and weaknesses.
2.1 Methodology discussion
A qualitative analysis has been made through studying of a project group consisting of representatives from three organizations. Qualitative analysis is best suited when you want an understanding of something fundamental or specific in a certain environment. The qualitative methods are
characterized by the emphasis on understanding, observations and measurements in natural settings, closeness to data, process oriented, generalizations by comparison and context of individual
organism, etc (Ghauri, Grönhaug, 2005). Focus is on a cooperation project group and how its working process functions. Repstad (1999) says that from a scientific aspect, it is of interest with studies of environments that are for example extreme, unique or have not been investigated earlier. This is because there is a real chance to find new knowledge. According to Ghauri, Grönhaug, 2005, the case is also useful for testing and developing theories.
My approach is more of an interpreting and reflecting kind than one of testing. The form of the knowledge has more the characteristic of giving insights, more than of giving the absolute truth. A cumulative insight is created through descriptions and statements that can contribute to the
understanding of different environments, not through statements that are universal and as such relevant to all in all situations (Alvesson, Deetz, 2000). I have used a combination of qualitative methods and also a combination of primary and secondary data, as well as a literature review, in my work. The method is inspired by a hermeneutic and interpreting approach. Alvesson, Deetz (2000) mean that the basis for most interpreting researchers, in their qualitative methods, is hermeneutics, ethnography or phenomenology. To guarantee scientific quality in a qualitative study, the criteria are the same as for quantitative studies; that the research methods are appropriate and sensitive to the question being asked, the connection to theory is clear, that the data collection and analysis were systematic and that there is a discussion about how concepts were derived from the data as well as about the evidence for and against the researcher’s arguments (Silverman 2001).
A combination of methods that complement each other is the best way to carry out research, because the methods retrieve different kinds of information and shed light on the issue from different angles and perspectives (Andersson, 1994, Repstad 1999). The combination of methods is a way to increase the accuracy of the study and this is relevant in relation to the concept of validity, especially when it comes to case studies where there is a need to validate information that comes from numerous
observations made it possible to ask more detailed and knowledgeable questions during the interviews, which also increased the quality of these and the results.
In choosing which methodology to use it is important to begin with the problem, the research questions that should be addressed (Andersson, 1994). According to Alvesson, Deetz (2000) most interpreting researchers carry out their studies in the field and observations and in-depths interviews are essential methods used. I consider the combination of the three methodologies to complement each other in a good way. Firstly, the literature studies put the research issue in a context gives depth and meaning to the study. Secondly, the written background information give the framework for the happenings and also show the organizations´ standpoints. Thirdly, the individual interviews give a deeper understanding through the possibility to clarify issues and questions. The observations of the study give a picture of the happenings from “outside”. The methods complement each other and are reciprocal. When one issue is visible through one methodology, this can be seen from another perspective through one of the other methods; an issue that has not been visible through one of the methods come up in another one and can then be discussed and seen in a different light.
As an additional way to secure the quality of the methods and the results, all the members in the project group had the possibility to read and comment on the study before it was handed in. A qualitative analysis of the study has been made through the following data:
a) Observations of the project group.
Being the secretary of the group, I observed, made notes and taped all the group meetings during year 2006. There have been 6-8 full day meetings. The participants in the group agreed to that this study was carried out.
b) Individual semi-structured interviews with all group participants and the chairman, all in all seven people.
c) Background materials have been studied, such as the group’s assignment, the cooperation agreement between the organizations, their strategic plans, presentations, etc.
And the following theory:
d) Literature studies of the existing knowledge and research already carried out concerning project groups, small group negotiations, the work processes and concepts in relation to these, for example uncertainty and conflicting interest.
2.1.1 Interviews
“The advantage of in-depth interviews is that we can gain a more accurate and clear picture of a respondent’s position or behaviour. …….…..This method of data collection is highly suitable for exploratory and inductive types of study as it matches their purposes very well.”
information as facts, opinions, attitudes, values, experiences and how a person interprets his/her environment (Andersson, 1994). The aim of qualitative interviews is to understand people and how they perceive their lives and situations. You get information, such as meaning, description, specific information, new knowledge and sensitive issues, which might not be possible to obtain from quantitative interviews (Kvale, 1997). The interviews in the study were individual, in order to get as much depth as possible in the investigation and to get each person’s views and opinions, without being influenced by other people, which might happen in a group interview. It was also important to meet the persons and not to rely on telephone interviews, in order not to “lose” any information, to see the person’s reactions, to make clarifications and to facilitate asking follow-up questions. Andersson (1994) states that communication takes place in both verbal and non-verbal forms in an interview situation. Through the non-verbal communication, such as posture, facial expressions and intonation, information is mediated. All the interviews, with one exception, were made face-to-face. Ghauri, Grönhaug (2005) say that the disadvantage of the in-depth interview is that it puts high demands on the interviewer, to have the knowledge and competence needed as well as an
understanding of the research problem and the information needed. In this case, as an interviewer I had knowledge about the area through the observation carried out. Positive aspects of this are that I had good insight in the group and an understanding of the situation, the assignment, etc. Negative aspects might be that being knowledgeable may create subjective views about the happenings. Also, Ghauri, Grönhaug (2005) point out that one of the disadvantages about using in-depth interviews is that they may be difficult to analyze in an objective way. It can be discussed if it is at all possible to be objective, since a researcher always has a role in a given context. Alvesson and Deetz (2000) argue that objectivity is not a central issue in research. The world is in itself intangible, facts and data have a meaning in relation to a certain context. The aim of the analysis of this case is to interpret and reflect around a specific situation and through this to get more experiences about the phenomenon studied. Another weakness according to Ghauri, Grönhaug (2005) is that the interviews can be too time-demanding. In this case the interviews were not too many and not so time-demanding; instead they gave valuable information and deeper insights to the study.
The enquiry consisted of open questions, in order not to limit the persons interviewed. According to Kvale (1997) the real strength of the qualitative interview is its openness. This was possible because seven interviews were carried out. If more people had been interviewed, it would have been too time-consuming in relation to the course work. This way, the interviews gave important knowledge to spot the developments and happenings in the group. All the six participants in the group agreed to be interviewed, as well as the chairman, which gave me good possibilities to get the overall picture of the group. The interviews were semi-structured and I used an interview guide with questions that were covered during the interview. The enquiry was first tested on two persons that knew nothing about the subject to see if the questions were easily understood or not. The first person being interviewed was also asked to give his opinions about what might need to be improved for the other interviews. After the interviews, everyone got to see their answers in writing to make sure that there had been no misunderstandings.
2.1.2 Observation
“In business studies, case study research is particularly useful when the phenomenon under
investigation is difficult to study outside its natural setting and also when the concepts and variables under study are difficult to quantify.”
(Ghauri, Grönhaug, 2005, p. 114)
As empirical data open observations of a cooperation project has been carried out together with several interviews and related written background information. This way it has been possible to do a real study, in a real situation. The value of observations is that it gives the researcher direct contact with social processes and happenings (Repstad, 1999). Normally when it comes to small group research the researchers rely on experimental simulations engaging for example students, which Schei and Rognes do, to carry out fictive group work. The strength of laboratory experiments is that the test of effects are controlled and assumed to be universal (Schei, Rognes 2005). At the same time, a real situation has important strong aspects compared to an experiment, as there are real people in an actual environment. In using a real-life situation instead of an experiment, one weak point is that the
developments cannot be controlled in the same way as in an experiment and other factors can affect the happenings. But at the same time, the ability to make interpretations and reflections, which can be of interest in more situations, could be higher this way. This is because you know what actually happened in a real-life situation with professional participants involved instead of students or a similar group of people. In this way the people had the required qualifications and experience, and the situation, with threats and possibilities, was real to them.
The study was a participatory observation, and through this open, so the participants knew that they were being observed (Ghauri, Grönhaug, 2005). There might of course be a difficulty in the fact that I acted as secretary in the group and also became a member of the group. According to Ghauri,
Grönhaug (2005) it might be hard to keep the objectiveness as researcher and be influenced by the relations with the people in the group. But at the same time it gives closeness to the subject area studied that cannot be obtained otherwise. I do not feel that this has been a problem, since the results of the study have not put me in a situation where I need to be either loyal to the group or to the study. Instead, in the qualitative methodology, the importance and necessity of having a close and direct relationship to the area of study is underlined (Repstad, 1999). Since it is usually difficult to be granted access to a real project group with a difficult task, this was a fantastic opportunity to be able to follow a project group and the work process at close range. It has given me the opportunity to follow the work and make observations to catch and try to reflect around the complexity in such a project.
The main advantage of the observation data is that it is collected for this specific issue and through this in line with the research question. But on the other hand, it takes a lot of time and the scope is narrow. Usually it is also difficult to get access to (Ghauri, Grönhaug, 2005). That is why this was a good opportunity to study the area.
The question of the possibility to generalise from qualitative methodology has been discussed a lot, especially in relation to observations and case-studies. There are three kinds of generalisation; the naturalistic, the statistic and the analytical generalisation. On the other hand, there is also the view that it is the recipient of the information who decides whether a result can be used in a new situation of not. (Kvale 1997) Silverman (2001) mean that there are some methods which increase the
participants had the required qualifications and experience and the situation, with threats and possibilities on organizational-, group- and individual level, was real. This is opposed to the normal method in small group research, which is to make experimental situations and study students or a similar group of people (Schei, Rognes 2005). Since the case is a real-life situation with professional participants involved, the ability to draw conclusions that are of interest for others should be quite high from this study. The prerequisite is of course that the study has been carried out with scientific quality in terms of reliability and validity that are relevant for qualitative research and that it has been operationalized in a proper manner (Silverman 2001).
As stated above, conclusions are not easy to generalize for all other small groups, but experiences from one group can give input, knowledge and new insights that can be “translated” and adapted to another group’s situation and setting, and through this give useful information. Another way is to ask questions and make reflections from the conclusions drawn; this is the case here, does it have any relevance in relation to your situation?
2.1.3 Literature studies
There is a lot of relevant literature in relation to this topic, within project management, project groups, small groups, etc. I have searched information through the databases at Blekinge Institute of Technology’s library and used the Elin@-search engine, the Libris database, the Proquest database, etc, with search words such as “project groups”, uncertainty”, “complexity”, “conflicting interests” “negotiation”, “small groups research”, “objectives”, “trust”, “the work process”, etc. There is
literature which is about project groups in the specific situation of having participants from more than one organization. This has of course been highly relevant. There is also literature about project groups and project work more in general, which also has been interesting to analyze and to draw conclusions from.
2.2 Analysis
I began with a literature study, to see what has been written within this area, what knowledge that exists, what results there are and to see what concepts that are used and how they relate to each other. Then methodologies were chosen, after reflection about how they could give the information that was needed to answer the research question and how they could complement each other. I made a
systematic analysis of the background materials and interviews concerning each organization, to find out what interests and objectives each of the organizations had in the cooperation and what
information/ instructions the representatives in the group had got.
The analysis was carried out on three levels; the individual level, the group level and the
organizational level. First I looked at each individual’s own role and behaviour in the group, through the observations and individual interviews. Secondly and thirdly, the organizations´ own interests, objectives as well as the group’s interests, etc, were considered through strategy documents, presentations, interviews, etc. Open answers from interviews that must be interpreted can be
systemized, categorized and divided into entities of analysis to make it possible to make an analysis, see connections and make conclusions (Andersson, 1994). The factors of diversity (interests,
CHAPTER THREE
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter consists of a literature review within the field today and a discussion about this in relation to the research topic.
This literature review will concentrate on diversity in cooperation projects from different
perspectives. Firstly, theories concerning uncertainty and complexity will be discussed. Secondly, the text looks at how diversity is handled by negotiations. Thirdly, diversity will be looked into from the aspects of interests, objectives, motivational orientation and trust. As a fourth point, the work process and group development in a project group will be discussed according to the FIRO-circle.
3.1 Uncertainty and complexity
With the changing business environment for many business- and work organizations, involving rapid changes and increased competition and changing prerequisites, comes a higher degree of uncertainty and complexity. The reality for companies today is characterized by permanent turbulence, with rapid and unpredictable changes (Christensen, Kreiner, 2005). The globalisation affects businesses and their situation; the competition increases at the same time as the market expands, etc. This leads to a higher degree of uncertainty and at the same time it also implies a higher degree of complexity to handle (Christensen, Kreiner, 2005).
In attempts to adapt to a changing reality, to cope with it and to handle it in a flexible manner, businesses and organizations have granted project groups, or teams, increased autonomy and flexibility (Dubrin, 2004). This means that businesses and organizations are opening up for
cooperation beyond organizational boundaries to survive in a changing environment. According to Lin et al (2005) groups have become more complex, multilevel and dynamic than before. This is even more noticeable with the notion of cooperation projects becoming more common as a form for handling more qualified development and cooperation issues. The notion of a cooperation project is in many ways a result of this business reality and the new needs and demands that have arisen. It is also affected by the uncertainty and complexity (Atkinson et al, 2006).
Complexity and uncertainty cannot be seen only in relation to the new business environment, but also on the project level. In projects consisting of many parties there is a higher degree of diversity, which gives a higher degree of uncertainty and complexity than usual. This affects to a large extent how the project performs (Atkinson et al, 2006). The uncertainty is related to different aspects, in relation to performance measures such as costs, duration, quality, and to aspects of objectives and priorities, relationships between project parties, etc. All these aspects are essential, but the latter ones are more important for the project performance (Chapman, Ward, 2005).
There are prerequisites and obstacles concerning the cooperation project. At the same time as it gives greater possibilities and opportunities for the parties, it puts bigger constraints and complex situations for the project group and the participants to handle. There are many factors giving diversity which are underlying and influencing the uncertainty. In this thesis, the focus is on the factors: interests,
3.2 Diversity
“Projects should be researched in terms of culture, conceptions, relations to the environment, longitudinal processes, etc; rather than simply as goal-fulfilling subsystems whose raison d´être is provided by a decisive and strategically aware super-system.”
(Packendorff, 2005 p.326)
Diversity is an important characteristic of a cooperation project. In a group consisting of participants from different companies or organizations, diversity arises from a number of factors. Examples are; varying objectives and interests of the organizations and /or the participants themselves, motivational orientation, ideas and opinions, etc.
3.2.1 Diversity implies negotiations
In this environment of uncertainty and complexity, where the cooperation project consists of partners with diverse preferences, the need for and use of negotiation is a natural part of the working group process. Negotiations give the members a possibility to frame each others interests, their standpoint and how the others are willing reach a common solution. Negotiations therefore give a natural possibility for participants to show and discuss their interests and conflicting interests with each other. Through the negotiations you get a feeling of what happens in a group, how group members cope with the diversity, interests, objectives, etc (Beersma, De Dreu 2002). A negotiation is in other words a way to communicate about different actors´ conflicting interests and a search for, and an attempt to reach, a common solution (Schei, Rognes 2005).
In a soft project with many stakeholders there will be negotiations, during which the participants in the group try to reach an agreement on the basis of their own interests, ideas or objectives. In groups like these, there is often an integrative potential. In other words, what one part gains do not mean that someone else in the group must lose (Beersma, De Dreu, 2002). This is the situation in the case studied in this thesis, where it can be possible that all three partners can gain from the results obtained. In many projects there is a win-win situation; it is just the question of getting all the partners to understand this and to try to reach it. The way of reaching a win-win situation is called integrative behaviour by Beersma and De Dreu (2002) as well as by Schei and Rognes (2005). Integrative means how the work is characterized by cooperation, joint efforts to understand each others´ points of view, to create common values and objectives, etc. Characteristics of a group with integrative behaviour are the open and thorough exchange of information, all participants´ interests are taken into account, joint problem-solving, etc (Schei, Rognes 2005, and Beersma, De Dreu 2002). In groups handling negotiations there is a possibility that coalitions among some of the group
members will be formed during the time span of the work (Schei, Rognes 2005). This can also affect the negotiations in new, unforeseen directions.
3.2.2 Interests and conflicting interests
When there is a higher degree of uncertainty and complexity, as in the defined soft project, there is room for diverse interests to take place and influence the group process. Diverse interests can also be handled through negotiation in the group, where negotiation is a way to define each stakeholder´s interests, to see where and how they match and where there are differences. How do you find the organizations´ interest? This is a difficult task to handle. There are open and hidden interests at the organizational level and also at group level and the individual level. Open interests are normally concrete and outspoken, while hidden interests can be unspoken, abstract and even inconsistent (Fisher et al, 2005). Interests can be conscious or unconscious and varying between organization, group or individual. In a cooperation project, the participants have a difficult balance to handle taking many interests into account.
“Establishment of a delicate balance between competition and teamwork represents a significant challenge for participants…”
(Ouchi, Bolton, 1988, p. 25)
There is a need of a real, deep dialogue between the partners to make sure that the issue of conflicting interests is handled in a constructive manner (Wisén, Lindblom 2004). This is also very important in relation to make it possible to develop the project work process and reach the objectives. This will be discussed thoroughly in the theoretical section.
A person is driven by his own free will, even if he is not rational; he has at least partly a free will. Different persons also have varying perspectives and interests, which are unstable and possible to form (Blomberg, 2003). This is the foundation of the concept of power and power distribution among individuals, for example participants in a group.
If you do not uncover the conflicting interests, you can put up a show and believe that you agree”. (Wisén, Lindblom, 2004, p. my translation)
Diverse interests can sometimes be conflicting. These are often seen as dysfunctional; something negative that should be avoided. But in small proportions they can also be seen as catalysts of innovation and new thinking (Packendorff, 1995). Conflicting interests can lead to fruitful
discussions, new ideas and new perspectives and drive the cooperation or results even further than otherwise would be the case. A team that is more multi-functional can give a broader perspective on problem solving and numerous possibilities can be uncovered. Another positive aspect is that the different interests can make the dialogue more focused and thorough. The participants must think in new ways and develop their arguments in a better way. On the negative side is that it might more difficult for the participants to agree on common goals and that there might be more conflicts, if the members do not manage to work in a positive, open environment (Dubrin, 2004).
group work in a competitive and tense environment, this might make them less flexible and less creative (Chen, 2006).
The conflicting interests must also be considered differently depending on which stage of the project work process. The stages affect how the conflicting interests are handled in the group, according to how the group changes and develops. (Chen, 2006) For example, in a new group constellation there is a greater risk that openly shown conflicting interests are seen as a threat to the group and the work that should be carried out. In a more mature group where the participants know each other well, conflicting interests do not threaten the existence of the group, but instead give input to an interesting discussion.
“Creativity seldom springs out of commonalities, it is the differences that enrich and show the way to new solutions that no one has thought about before.”
(Wisén, Lindblom, 2004, p. my translation) According to Atkinson et al (2006) p. 689:
“Failure to clarify stakeholder expectations and priorities at an early stage can cause major difficulties later in the project.”
Defining the interests in relation to a project, the Analysis of Interests can be of use. You want to find out in which way the stakeholders support the project, what their interests are and what they expect in return. Normally the model is used for looking only at “the outside”, it is taken for granted that the “inside”, the project partners, agree. The model is used to take all individuals, groups and
organisations that have some kind of relationship to the project, into consideration (Wisén, Lindblom 2004). But I would suggest that this model is of interest to use also in projects with multiple partners, to start a discussion and to lower the degree of uncertainty. Through lowering the degree of
uncertainty, trust, and maybe also motivational orientation, are increased, which in turn affect the possibilities to reach better outcomes of the project.
3.2.3 Diverse objectives
There are different levels where objectives, or goals, exist, on the individual level, the group level and the organizational level. Svedberg (2007) says that there is a natural competitive relationship between these, all three cannot be maximised at the same time. But this does not have to be solely negative. If they are within reasonable limits, they can stimulate the developments of the group.
The management must clearly show what the aims and objectives are and how the work should be carried out. Also, the aims and objectives must be clear. There is also a risk with many stakeholders that there are different directives on what should be obtained (Wisén, Lindblom 2004, Reijniers, 1994). Uncertainty about the goals and objectives can create a lot of problems in projects. If the uncertainty also reaches the objectives and motives of the project participants, the difficulties will increase even more. (Chapman, Ward, 2005) This is closely related to interests; how well the goal is defined affects how different interests will take up time in the process and how it will influence the work carried out. Stakeholders with interests on their own also make the process with finding common objectives for the project more complex and difficult (Wisén, Lindblom 2004).
of clear, concrete goals for a project to work and function and to have any possibility of being successful. The other one discusses the potential of having more unclear goals, how this can work as a common incentive for a group with different perspectives or for making groups work more
strategically.
On the one hand, Blomberg (2003) points out that energy can be created in a project by formulating attractive and unclear goals. Unrealistic goals are more attractive than realistic ones, and they make people work even harder. An unclear goal is also good because different stakeholders´ interests can differ. You do not have to agree with each other, but can still agree on the goal. It also gives the possibility that the stakeholders´ and actors’ goals may change over time, but keep the same common goal. If the goal is interesting enough, and sounds tempting, everyone wants to be in. With an unclear goal, you can influence people’s resources and interests, but you cannot influence their daily activities to any greater extent.
According to Blomberg (1998) people in project groups almost always have different objectives. He argues that this can be seen as an asset in the work. What is of importance is that the difference between project participants is not defined to organizations, professions or formal rules. There are many sublime differences between people that affect the work carried out; their informal role in the project, how they influence the work, etc. In other words, a lot that has do to with their personalities. On the opposite hand, Wisén and Lindblom (2004) argue that the goal is the most important tool to support the project and its work process. The definition of the goal is seen as the critical point; a well-defined goal gives the project its “backbone”. A general, broad goal can give rise to a number of problems during the work process; different interpretations concerning the goal and the wanted outcome of the project, insecurity and instability. It also increases the risk of conflicts.
3.2.4 Motivational orientation
According to Schei and Rognes (2005) a negotiation is a way to communicate about conflicting interests of many parties and an attempt to reach a common solution in a project. In doing this, the parties, or participants in a project group, have different motivational orientation (Brett 2001, De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon, 2000 in Schei, Rognes 2005). Some participants have a more individualistic motivational orientation while others have a cooperative motivational orientation. The individualists only look at their individual, or their organization’s, outcome and results. The motivational
orientation of an individual can therefore depend on the person´s own interests or for example instructions from and/or responsibility to an organization (Schei, Rognes 2005). In this study the concept of individual motivational orientation is used only in the meaning of the organization’s interest.
“Traditionally, individuals are not supposed to have motives when they join the project organization; they are to be motivated by the project manager.”
(Packendorff, 2005, p.326)
the goal theory, which is a part of all major theories about motivation at work. The goal affects how people act and what they wish to attain (Dubrin, 2004). These theories are of course the basis for the motivational orientation of the participants in a group, why they pursue one orientation or another. I will not go into further detail about this, but concentrate on describing the motivational orientations and their impact on the group process.
The group members´ different standpoints affect the work process and how the negotiations are carried out. How integrative the work process and results are in a group depends on how integrative the behaviour and the agreements are in the group. Integrative in this sense means how the work is characterized by joint efforts and joint aims in the group. Information exchanges and problem-solving within the group are important characteristics for a group to have an integrative behaviour. The integrative behaviour is most commonly used by participants with cooperative motivational
orientation. The opposite of integrative behaviour is distributive behaviour, which consist of arguing and concessions. This style is more commonly used by participants with an individualistic
motivational orientation.
Beersma and De Dreu, 2002, use the terms prosocial motive and egoistic motive to describe the same thing that Schei and Rognes (2005) are discussing. The person with a prosocial motive wants to find good outcomes both for himself and the group as a whole while the person with an egoistic motive only wishes to find good results for himself. Prosocially motivated groups work to obtain
inclusiveness of all participants and a balance for all in the results, according to Van Lange 1999 (in Beersma and De Dreu, 2002). They use integrative behaviour and try to avoid distributive behaviour. Beersma and De Dreu (2002) also argue that groups with mixed motivational orientations will obtain lower outcomes than groups with only a prosocial motive.
3.2.5 Trust
When a project is characterized as “soft”, much depends on the level and type of trust between the partners. This is of course a critical issue, since a cooperation project is a new and temporary
phenomenon, where the parties often do not know very much about each other in advance. There is a lack of time for shared experiences for a robust familiarity to evolve. Factors of trust play a vital role in the success or failure of “softer” projects. Vital aspects to consider in relation to trust are;
vulnerability, which exists in relation to each other, credibility, what the participants can and want to do, the culture of the organization and visibility, connected to openness of information (Atkinson et al, 2006). Trust is also necessary for processes to function with efficiency and effectiveness and vital to make it possible to finish a project successfully. The development of trust is important to take into consideration in order to obtain good team relations (Munns, 1995). An important aspect it also to obtain an efficient group climate. Loo (2003) discusses the need of safety, which also includes the notion of trust, among other characteristics of a positive climate in a project group.
Trust can be defined as: “A decision to become vulnerable to or dependent on another in return for the possibility of a shared positive outcome.”
(Munns, 1995, p.19)
Kadefors separates between three kinds of trust. The first one is calculus-trust, which is often based on incentives, either financial or more intangible, where someone has something to offer and the other one something to gain. The second one is relational trust, where participants over time get to know each other and start to rely on each other. The third one is institution-based trust, where institutions give the prerequisites for trust; the most obvious example is probably legal systems. The complex picture of trust is made even more complicated by the fact that the different kinds of trust do not seem to complement each other. On the other hand, they can be counteracting depending on how they are interpreted by the other group members. (Kadefors, 2004)
“However, close co-operation is unlikely to take place of persist if relational trust does not develop between individuals who interact directly and intensely over a longer period of time.”
3.3 The FIRO-model- development phases in a project
Fig 3.1, The FIRO-model for group development
FIRO is short for Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation and the model is divided into three development phases.
The first phase, “Belonging”, exists when there is a new group. The participants do not know each other and have objectives that are hidden from each other. They will engage in many discussions about trivialities and try to get information about each other. They will treat each other carefully and with respect. All conflicts, also smaller ones, are avoided. There is a will to identify which norms for behaviour that are expected in the group. The participants also try to understand the objectives of the group and the structure for the work. They think about if they are accepted by the others in the group and if they themselves want to be in the group.
The change from the first to the second phase is often called “Pleasant”, when all participants feel that they are part of the group. During the first phase they have avoided all conflicts, especially the ones about power and responsibility. In this phase, the members will start to exhibit their hidden objectives and motives. They engage more actively and say their meaning openly. They are also less depending on the group and start to take risks.
The group will go into the second phase, the one of “Control”, when the issues in the group start to evolve around roles and responsibilities between the members. A big question is also who is in charge in the group, who has what responsibilities and what tasks. It is not uncommon that the group
members will create sub-groups, representing different standpoints. Former hidden motives and agendas will be shown even more openly and the discussions can be quite harsh.
The transfer from phase two to three is called “Idyllic”. Before the group enters this phase the issues about division of responsibilities, who is in control, etc, must be solved. In this phase the group members will feel, and also show, that they belong to the group. They will communicate in an open and spontaneous manner. They listen to each other, might change their point of view and have a willingness to find solutions. They care about the other participant’s needs and behaviour. A feeling of solidarity and an attitude of “we against them” will evolve.
In the third and last phase, “Closeness”, there is a high degree of loyalty and mutual respect between the group members. Ideas and opinions are openly discussed and all participants’ strengths are used to find the best alternatives. Conflicts are not regarded as a threat, but as a factor for development. The participants are eager to find solutions where all group members are in agreement. The role and function of the group is clear in relation to the overall objective of the organization.
The FIRO-model is cyclic, which means that if the prerequisites are changed, then the group can start all over again or go back one or two steps in the group development phases. This can be caused by for example new tasks, new group members or new situations inflicted by external forces that arise (Svedberg, 2007 and Ljusenius, Rydqvist, 1999).
